Control desktop window

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already provide destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description confirms destructive actions (close) and specifies the handle source. However, it does not disclose error behavior (e.g., invalid handle), platform dependencies, or whether actions are synchronous.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Single sentence that is front-loaded with the verb 'Focus, minimize, maximize, restore, or close' and quickly provides the handle source. Zero waste, perfectly concise.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple tool with 2 params and annotations, the description covers purpose, source of handle, and action options. Missing details on error handling and synchronous behavior, but these are minor given the tool's straightforward nature. There is no output schema to document, so no gap there.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden. It lists the action enum values in text and links handle to list_windows output, adding meaning beyond the schema. However, it does not explain each action's effect (e.g., restore vs maximize), nor what 'handle' represents (OS window ID?).

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states it controls a desktop window by handle, listing all five actions. It specifies the handle source (list_windows), distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_windows (which obtains handles) and browser_control (browser-specific).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly says to use the handle returned from list_windows, establishing a prerequisite. It implies usage context (after listing windows) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools for other window operations.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.